analyze_chart

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'evaluate the quality... using AI.' It does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, what AI model is used, whether it triggers side effects (e.g., logging), or what permissions are needed. This lack of detail impairs safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence of 16 words, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, lacking details that could improve clarity without significant length increase.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format, how the evaluation is scaled, or how the parameters interact, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter described adequately (e.g., 'Current ATR value'). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool evaluates the quality of an intraday setup using AI, with specific resources (technical levels, recent candles). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_chart_data (data retrieval) and validate_trade_setup (rule-based validation).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_trade_setup or build_trade_plan. The description only states the tool's function, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.